Working Papers in EconomicsDepartment of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY, 12180-3590, USA. Tel: +1-518-276-6387; Fax: +1-518-276-2235; URL: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/economics/; E-Mail: keenak@rpi.edu

Global Oil Resources and the Persian Gulf: Security and

Democracy

Duane ChapmanCornell University

Number 0314

December 2003

______________________________________________________________________________

For more information and to browse and download further Rensselaer Working Papers in

Economics, please visit: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/economics/www/workingpapers/

Global Oil Resources and the Persian Gulf: Security and Democracy

Duane Chapman, Dept. of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca NY14853. Email: Duane.Chapman@cornell.edu.

Abstract

The oil of the Persian Gulf has been of considerable interest to oil companies and Western

governments (and to Russia) for more than a century. Remaining global conventional crude oil

resources are on the order of 3 trillion barrels, with more than 50% of that amount in the Persian

Gulf. Since 1986, a price range framework has resulted in stable crude oil prices and reliable

supply. In economic terms, it is a Nash game theory equilibrium between Gulf producers and

Western (and Asian) consumers. Military support is an important part of the system. Given

the very low cost of production in the region (about $5 per barrel) and the great magnitude of

resources, the oil wealth in the Gulf is on the order of $60 trillion. It is the existence of past and

potential efforts to seize this resource which creates a major policy problem for the 8 countries in

the region and for global security. The security framework which made a stable world oil market

possible has itself contributed to growing instability in individual countries, the rise of Al Qaeda,

and the U.S. occupation of Iraq. There are three broad policy approaches to this dilemma. The

dominant policy in the 1973-1990 period was generally a “hands off” position by the U.S. and

Europe. In the years following the Gulf War (1991-current) a security system has been

organized and led by the United States. A third type of security structure would be essentially

international. The paper concludes by discussing each approach in the context of 6 conditions or

requirements for democratic governments and a stable world oil market.

Acknowledgements: To Neha Khanna (Cornell and Binghamton Universities), for her

significant contributions to earlier work used here, and for her comments on this paper; to

Darwin Hall (California State University at Long Beach) for encouraging that earlier work; to

Susan Greaves in Cornell’s Olin map library for the very useful Figure 1; to Steven Reiss here for

his outstanding research and manuscript assistance; and to Richard Fullerton (U.S. Air Force

Academy) and Matthew Evangelista (Cornell) for their comments and criticism. Previous

versions of this paper have been presented at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Cornell Aerospace

(ROTC) Studies, Cornell Peace Studies Program, U.S. Ecological Economics Association Annual

Meeting, Department of Ecology-Iran, and the Western Economic Association International

Annual Meeting.

2Introduction

The map (Figure 1) illustrates the interactions of Persian Gulf oil and international

security. Within this image are (a) 5 countries with nuclear weapons, (b) 3 countries where U.S.

forces are engaged in military conflict, (c) the nationalities of 18 of the 19 hijackers who

undertook the September 11, 2001 attacks, (d) more than three-fourths of the world’s readily

accessible proved petroleum reserves and more than half of the estimated total remaining oil, and

(e) the location of 6 major recent armed conflicts that did not involve the United States.

I. Brief History: Petroleum, the Persian Gulf, and the West

Today’s issues with security and oil have long roots. Turkey’s Ottoman Empire

controlled most of the region at different periods over a 7-century span in the last millennium.

The slow disintegration of the Empire was accelerated by the search for oil for naval vessels by

Britain and France early in the 20th Century. In the years after WWI, much of the oil regions of

the Persian Gulf was under the production control of Western oil companies. Initially British

Petroleum and the French Petroleum Company dominated the region, reflecting the European

concern for secure sources of petroleum. By the 1950's, however, American oil companies had

become full partners.1 The organization of Western oil concessions was typical of natural

resource production areas throughout the developing world for the time. One observer described

the early oil concessions in this way:

1 See Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2. Russia and the Soviet Union during this period sought to establish influence inthePersian Gulf, but were generally unsuccessful except for brief periods in Iran and Iraq.

3

Figure 1. Persian Gulf Region

4

Table 1. Persian Gulf Countries: Notes on Government and Colonial

History

Bahrain British Protectorate from 1861 until independence in 1971. Monarchy. Al

Khalifa family rule since 1783. Constitution, National Assembly created in

1973. National Assembly dissolved in 1975. In 1993, Consultative Council

of appointed members formed. Government friendly to U.S.

Iran Monarchy with significant British influence and parliamentary democracy to

1951. Conflict over oil nationalization until parliament democracy displaced

by Shah monarchy in 1953 with assistance of US-CIA. Revolution in 1979

replaced Shah with an Islamic Republic, a combination of clerical theocracy

and electoral democracy. The supreme spiritual leader has final authority in

all executive, legislative, and judicial matters. Executive branch headed by an

elected president. The Majlis is the legislative Consultative Body.

Different parts of government hostile or open towards U.S.

Iraq Turkish control until 1906. A British mandate after WWI. Monarchy

overthrown in 1958 by army with communist support. Ba’ath Socialist

Party took control in 1968 with minor assistance from US-CIA. Saddam

Hussein established dictatorship in 1979. Government hostile to U.S. until

American occupation in 2003.

Kuwait British protectorate until independence in 1961. Monarchy. Al Sabah

family rule. Constitution in 1962 vests power in an emir selected from

ruling family. Elected National Assembly exists but subject to dissolution

or suspension by the emir. Government friendly to U.S.

Oman Independence from Portuguese control in 1650. British protectorate from

1789 until 1951. Monarchy. Al Said family rule. In 1991, a Consultative

5Council of regional representatives was formed. Government friendly to

U.S.

Qatar Ottoman control from 1878 until World War I. British Protectorate until

independence in 1971. Monarchy. Al Thani family rule. In 1999 municipal

elections were held. Government Friendly to U.S.

Saudi Arabia Independence from the Turkish Empire after WWI. Unification in 1932.

Monarchy. Al Saud family rule. No elections or political parties.

Consultative Council of appointed members initiates laws and reviews

policy. Government friendly to U. S.

United Arab

Emirates

Independence from Britain in 1971. Confederation of monarchies. Rulers

of 7 constituent states (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-

Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah, and Fujairah) participate in a Supreme Council

which elects the President for 5 year terms. The Federal National Council is

appointed. Government friendly to U.S.

Primary Sources: US-CIA, The World Factbook 2002; Accessed 3/2/03 - 4/4/03,<http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html>. Other Sources: Arthur S. Banks &Thomas C. Muller, Political Handbook of the World (Binghamton, NY: CSA Publications, 1999). Encyclopedia Britannica Online; Accessed 3/2/03-4/4/03; <http://eb.com/>. Lord Kinross, TheOttoman Centuries (New York City: Morrow, 1977). George T. Kurian, Enyclopedia of theThird World, (New York City: Facts on File, 1992). Roger Morris, “A Tyrant in the Making”,New York Times, March 14, 2003. Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for Control ofIraq (New York City: McGraw-Hill, 1979). Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The GreatOil Companies and the World They Made (New York City: Viking, 1975). Daniel Yergin, ThePrize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (New York City: Simon and Schuster, 1992). *author’s opinion.

6

Table 2. Historical Summary: Security, Production, Pricing

Broad Era Military Security Production & Pricing Decisions

I. WWI to 1950’s Britain British Petroleum (BP)

II. 1950’s to 1973 none Aramco,* BP, Shell,a. Suez Canal 1956 CFP, Texacob. OPEC Oil Embargo 1973

III. 1973 – 1986 none OPECa. Iraq invades Iran oilfields, 1980b. Bush Sr./Saudi priceagreement, 1986

IV. 1986 – 1990 none OECD/OPEC firsta. Iraq invades Kuwait, 1990 target price range

b. repulsed by U.S. led UN coalition, 1991

V. 1991 – 2002 U.S./U.N. OECD/OPEC second target price range

VI. 2003 – current U.S. OECD/OPEC continue second price range

VII. (please see conclusion) 3 options 3 options

*Note: ARAMCO was the Arab-American Oil Company which operated in Saudi Arabia. Thepartners were Standard of California (Socal/Chevron) and Texaco, since merged; and Exxon andMobil, also merged. See Figure 2.

7

Figure 2. 1972 Joint Oil Production Companies Composition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Iran - Consortium Iraq - IPC Saudi Arabia -Aramco

Saudi Arabia -Kuwait Oil Co.

Abu Dhabi - AbuDhabi Marine

Abu Dhabi - AbuDhabi Petrol

BP40% BP

23.75%

BP50%

BP66.67%

BP23.75%

Shell14%

Shell23.75%

Shell23.75%

Exxon 7%Exxon11.875%

Exxon11.875%

Mobil 7%Mobil11.875%

Exxon30%

Mobil 10%

Mobil11.875%

Gulf 7%

Gulf50%

Texaco 7%

Texaco30%

Socal 7% Socal30%

CFP 6%

CFP23.75%

CFP33.33%

CFP23.75%

Other 5% Other 5% Other 5%

Source: Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies And the World They Made (New York: Viking, 1975), page

136.

“One would have a clear conception of the situation in Persia if one could imagine that

Russian officers command the National Guard, French professors lecture in French, the

Dutch own and manage the only bank, with a branch in every county, employing a large

number of Indians. The British own and manage the only large industrial operation (oil).

People would resent this state of affairs and try to change it.”2

II. The Tradeoff: Price Stability and Military Security

American and European oil companies managed production in the Persian Gulf much the

same way as in Texas or the North Sea. However, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war created a surge of

antagonism in the Arab world against the U.S. and Europe. The OPEC nations, led by Saudi

Arabia, seized the authority to control oil production within their countries. Their efforts to

raise oil prices were initially successful, nearly reaching $40 per barrel, but had collapsed by 1986

with crude prices at $10 per barrel.

In 1986 then-Vice President George H. Bush went to the Persian Gulf and worked with

the Saudi King and government to stabilize oil prices at a higher level. The price range framework

which was created in 1986 is essentially the price structure which exists today: see Figure 3. All

12 years are within 75 cents of the first target range, except the 1990 price when Iraq invaded

Kuwait. The new price range of $23-$30 was established in 2000; it is equivalent to the old $15-

$20 range adjusted for inflation. The collapse of the old price range in 1998 was influenced by

the economic recession in Asia in that year, the 300% increase (from 1996 to 1998)

2 Adapted from JM. Upton, The Modern History of Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), page 32. Also pages 83-86 in D. Chapman, Energy Resources and Energy Corporations (Ithaca NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1983).

9

Figure 3. Target Price Ranges: Old and New

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

All 12 years are within $0.75 of the first range,except Iraq-Kuwait, 1990

NEW $23 - $30 RANGE, 2000 - Current

OLD $15 - $20 RANGE, 1986 - 1997

NO TARGET RANGE,1998 - 1999

10

in Iraq’s oil output, and the inflation-reduced value of revenues generated under the old price

range. The most recent three years are all within the new range, as is the 2003 average to date.

Persian Gulf production costs are $5 per barrel or less (see Table 12 below). Why, then,

do the Gulf countries not pursue a low-price policy which would increase their sales, market

share, and perhaps their revenues? When prices are below $15, the normally slow rate of

production decline in the U.S. falls more rapidly as high-cost facilities are shut down and drilling

plummets. American oil producers’ revenues are affected twice: first by reduced production, and

second by a lower price. With very low prices, American oil companies will not encourage the

U.S. government to support the existing Persian Gulf governments. At low oil prices, petroleum

companies move to influence American policy to raise prices, as in 1986 and 1998.

In contrast, with very high oil prices, American consumers and oil-using businesses

dominate American policy. Congressmen from states without oil production call for termination

or reduction of military support for Persian Gulf governments. American policy considers

withdrawing military and political support of the Gulf governments at either extreme of the price

spectrum.3

The Gulf governments understand these reactions, and the potential threat to their

security if prices are outside the target range. Table 3 summarizes several of the political,

economic, and military factors which work to keep prices within the range, currently $23-$30. It

3 As noted above, when oil prices were very low, the goal of then-Vice President George H. Bush in his 1986 visitto Saudi Arabia was clearly to raise oil prices to protect American producers and their support for him (Yergin,pages 755-758). The role of Congressmen from oil consuming states was evident in 2000 in a period of high prices(e.g., New York Times March 2, 19, 23, & 29; 2000).

11

Table 3: General Economic Impact of Crude Oil PriceDecision–Making in a Game Theory Price Range Framework

Price per barrel OECD Countries Persian Gulf Oil Producers

$15 or less • higher GNP growth

• shut some domestic production

• greatly increased oil consumption

• much more imports

• more pollution, climate change

• end Persian Gulf political supportby OECD oil industry

• loss of political support fromOECD oil industry

• lower revenue, greater volume

• internal economic problems

• faster depletion

• higher market share

$23 - $30 • stable GNP growth

• stable OECD oil production

• slow growth in oil consumption

• slow growth in import share

• stable prices

• ANWR production feasible

• continued Persian Gulf support

• continued OECD political,military support

• stable revenue, rent

• stable market share

• cooperation with OECD oilindustry

$40 • decline in GNP growth

• rapid near-term growth domesticproduction

• stable or declining consumption

• ANWR production profitable

• OECD Persian Gulf supportopposed by oil consumers

• loss of OECD political, militarysupport

• increased incentives for CentralAsia, other non-OPEC production

• less market share

• less production, more profit, rent

• greater payoff to successful Iraq-type action

12is a system which economists describe as a Nash equilibrium.4 Neither side can improve its

overall situation by working to move crude prices outside the price range.

Iraq’s invasions of the oil regions of Iran (1980) and Kuwait (1990), if successful, would

have gained for Iraq control of nearly half of known oil reserves and a fourth of total remaining

resources (see Table 9 below). Success in these two invasions would have led to an Iraq

influence, control, or occupation of the remainder of the Gulf countries. In this case, Iraq

would have held three-fourths of known global reserves and one-half of remaining oil.

III. Military Security, Nuclear Weapons, Al Qaeda

In reaction to these concerns, Persian Gulf governments undertook major military

expansion in the 1990s. In one three-year period, three Gulf countries purchased $32 billion in

weaponry (see Table 4). The total population in these three countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,

UAE) was about 25 million. In other words, these three countries expended more than $1,000

per capita on arms, 13% of their Gross Domestic Product.

The importance of military policy and prices was noted above first with respect to the

price range framework, and then again in the context of Iraq’s attempt to control Persian Gulf Oil.

Table 5 shows another dimension of this relationship. There is a strong correlation between arms

trade and petroleum trade. Weapons exporters are likely to import oil (R = .74),5 and oil

exporters are likely to import weapons (R = .70).

4 After the Nobel prize winner John Nash who pioneered game theory concepts.5 Tables 4, 5, and 6 were prepared by Neha Khanna and used earlier in D. Chapman and N. Khanna, “An EconomicAnalysis of Aspects of Petroleum and Military Security in the Persian Gulf,” Contemporary Economic Policy,October 2001, 19(4): 371-381.

13Nuclear weapons are increasing in countries near the Persian Gulf; see Table 6. There is

no current threat to Gulf oil production or shipment with nuclear warheads as of this writing.

The many conflicts in nearby countries have existed independently of Persian Gulf oil. However,

nuclear weapons capability might at a future date be utilized by Israel, Pakistan, or India. Each

could threaten Persian Gulf oil production or transport to encourage greater U.S. and European

involvement in the Kashmir and Middle East conflicts. The small possibility of a fundamentalist

government assuming power in Pakistan translates into an equally small but real possibility that

Pakistan could employ a nuclear threat against Gulf countries, or shipping, or American naval

vessels and bases in the Gulf.6

Since any civilian nuclear power program can be the basis for manufacturing nuclear

weapons, Iran’s nuclear power development creates the potential for future weapons capability.

It is well known that 17 of the 19 September 11, 2001 hijackers were born in Persian Gulf

countries. In addition, 7 of the 9 apparently highest-ranking leaders of the Al Qaeda organization

are from Saudi Arabia or its neighbors.7 The May 2003 attacks against Westerners in Saudi

Arabia were made primarily by Saudis. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda apparently see the governments

6 A point we made in Chapman and Khanna 2001, page 379.7 Osama bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Walid Ba’Attash,Mustafah Muhammed Ahmad, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.

Table 4. Value of Arms Transfer Deliveries by Major Supplier and Recipient Country

(Cumulative 1994-1996, millions of current dollars)

Supplier

Recipient

Total US UK Russia France Germ-any

China OtherNATO

MiddleEast

OtherEast

Europe

OtherWest

Europe

OtherEastAsia

AllOthers

World 119,565 67,210 16,405 8,490 6,675 4,045 1,970 4,610 3,070 2,130 2,485 595 1,880DevelopedUSIsraelRussiaFranceGermanyJapan

52,0703,3302,865

50695

2,7106,020

38,760-

2,60030550

2,6006,000

1,35595000000

845400-000

2,16016000-00

3,02532015000-0

404000000

1,99095050

40600

1,310330005

100

180301020000

1,37014000000

20020000000

8351708008000

DevelopingChinaTaiwan

67,4952,5654,090

28,450120

3,330

15,05000

7,6452,000

0

4,5150

775

1,02000

1,930-0

2,62000

1,7603200

1,950300

1,11500

39500

1,045800

OPECIranKuwaitSaudiArabiaUAE

36,0801,0253,405

26,5852,270

15,1500

1,90011,700

800

12,9150

67511,200

260

1,6253207500

200

3,040060

2,000750

19000

600

525500000

940100

7750

8510000

31080200

20

860100

8500

1505000

40

290500

200

NATO 25,525 18,150 1,195 230 1,300 1,470 40 1,785 580 45 275 200 255Source: Prepared by Neha Khanna; from Chapman and Khanna, 2001, op. cit.

Table 5: Correlation Coefficients

Correlation of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient

Arms exports with Oil imports

Arms imports with Oil exports

Total arms trade with Total trade

Total arms trade with Total oil trade

Total trade with Total oil trade

0.74

0.70

0.69

0.80

0.81

Variable definitions: All data are for 1995

Arms exports (imports): value of conventional weapons exports (imports)

Arms trade: sum of arms exports and arms imports

Oil imports (exports): total volume of crude oil and refined petroleum products imports

(exports)

Total trade: total value of merchandise imports and exports

Source: Chapman and Khanna, 2001, op. cit.

16

Table 6: Nuclear Weapons Capabilities

Name and history Arsenal(number of warheads)

Representative Missile Range(miles)

1. Countries with nuclear weapons capabilitiesUnited StatesFirst test: 1945Total number of tests: 1,030

United KingdomFirst test: 1952Total number of tests: 45

FranceFirst test: 1961Total number of tests: 210

RussiaFirst test: between 1945-1952Total number of tests: 715

ChinaFirst test: 1964Total number of tests: 45

IndiaFirst test: 1974Total number of tests: 6

IsraelKnown to have bomb

PakistanBegan secret program in 1972

North Korea

12,070

380

500

22,500

450

65

64-112

15-25

?

8,100

7,500

3,300

6,800

6,800

1,500

930

930

?

2. Countries that terminated nuclear weapons programs

Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa.

Source: Chapman and Khanna 2001.

17of Saudi Arabia and the other southern Gulf nations as semi-colonial agents of the United States.

In part, the Al Qaeda political program is focused on the goal of replacing the Persian Gulf

monarchies because of their strong association with the U.S.8

To date there is no indication of competent Al Qaeda interest in nuclear weapons,

although a minor initiative was discovered and terminated.9 It would seem a likely possibility

that Al Qaeda or similar groups would seek to work with fundamentalist Islamic political groups

to gain control or influence over Pakistani nuclear weapons.10

IV. Global Oil Resources and the Persian Gulf; U. S. Imports

Tables 7 and 8 show the concepts that are utilized in estimating world oil resources.11

The total remaining resource estimate of 2.855 trillion barrels (in Table 8) is the sum of three

components. “Known Reserves” (similar in meaning to “Proved Reserves”) are relatively firm

values used in developing near-term production plans. It is the minimum amount of crude oil that

may be expected to be produced from a field or reservoir.

“Potential Reserve Expansion” is a best-guess estimate of future production at an existing

site which exceeds the proved reserves figure. As geological techniques have improved, potential

reserve expansion has become more important in petroleum resource planning. It is a

probabilistic concept. For an existing field under production, remaining resources would be the

8 CNN March 1997 interview with Osama bin Laden, especially transcript pages 1, 2, and 5.9 Jose Padilla is reported to have met with Al Qaeda members, and studied radiological weapons on the internet. Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2002; Washington Post, June 15, 2002.10 New York Times, November 1 and December 17, 2001. Seymour Hersh, “Watching the Warheads,” November5, 2001 New Yorker, pages 48-54.11 Tables 7-9 and Figure 4 build upon recent work by Chapman or Chapman and Khanna. That work, in turn, uses

18sum of “Known Reserves” and “Potential Reserve Expansion.”

“Undiscovered Resources” is a term used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It

could be roughly translated “Approximate probability distribution estimates of oil resources in

areas which have not been explored in detail.” In general, it is a category which relies on

extrapolation. Suppose Area A is a region that has been producing for many years and has been

extensively investigated. Known reserves are set at 500 million barrels. Area B is the same size

with apparently identical geology. The undiscovered resource for Area B may have a mean

estimate of the same 500 million barrel figure, with a 95% probability of at least 400 million

barrels, and a 5% probability of 600 million barrels.

These assessments are developed for individual regions throughout the world. A real

example for Russia: in Western Siberia, the Togur-Tyumen Petroleum System has 5 fields. The

95% probability estimate is 2.3 billion barrels, and the 5% probability estimate is 14.7 billion

barrels. For all of Russia, the USGS analyzed 45 assessment units with 331 oil fields. The

results: 95% probability of 25 billion barrels, and a 5% probability of at least 148 billion barrels;

this, recall, in the “Undiscovered Resource” category.

Figure 412 shows the changing nature of the probability distributions for “Original

Resources,” the 5th category in Table 7. At every probability level, the estimates have increased.

basic data from the U.S. Geological Survey.12 Figure 4 is from Chapman 2001, op. cit.

Table 7. Concepts in Resource Definition

A. Proved Reserves – Economically recoverable conventional crude oil at known fields and reservoirs,estimated directly by engineering as well as geological data. Similar to an inventoryconcept.

B. Potential Reserve Expansion –

Identified reserves expected to be developed in existing fields through improvedrecovery, extensions, revisions, and the addition of new reservoirs and pools.

C. Undiscovered Resources – Geological extrapolation of potential crude oil based upon knowledge of geologicalformations outside existing fields. A probabilistic concept.

D. Total Remaining Resources –

An estimate of total conventional crude oil available for recovery; the sum of thepreceding categories.

E. Original Endowment – The amount of oil existing before production began in 1859. It combines the amount ofcumulative production to date with the remaining resources estimate.

Sources: USGS, “1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources,” USGPO 1995. D. Chapman, “World Oil: Hotelling Depletion or Accelerating Use?” Nonrenewable Resources, Journal ofthe International Association for Mathematical Geology, Winter 1993, 2(4).

Table 8. Probability 5% of Remaining World Oil(billion barrels)

Category Amount

Known Reserves 883

Potential Reserve Expansion 682

Undiscovered Resources 1,290

Total Remaining Resources 2,855

Note: The 2000 Assessment data used a January 1, 1995 benchmark date. Production in the 8 years 1995-2002 was192 billion barrels, implying a current remaining resource estimate of 2,663. World cumulative production 1859-2002 has been 931 billion barrels, implying an original endowment of 3.6 trillion barrels. The table is a revision ofTable 1 in D. Chapman, “A Review of the New Undiscovered Conventional Crude Oil Resource Estimates andTheir Economic and Environmental Implications,” Cornell AEM Working Paper 2001-22, December 2001.

21For the latest assessment, the range between high probability low resource estimates and low

probability high oil resource estimates has increased. For the 5% probability level, the estimate

of original endowment has grown by 1.5 Tbl (trillion barrels).

Petroleum resources in the Persian Gulf are shown in Table 9.13 (The terminology in

Table9 uses the concepts explained in the discussion of Tables 7 and 8.) The dominant position

Persian Gulf countries is evident. The region holds 76% of known reserves and 54% of estimated

total remaining resources.

Since Persian Gulf oil costs are on the order of $5 per barrel, and U.S. and European costs

are on the order of $20 to $25 for new fields,14 the importance of the Gulf region in quantity of

resources is multiplied by its uniquely low production costs.

In the long run these factors will increase in importance. The U.S. including Alaska is

past its production peak, and production levels in the U.S. will continue to decline. North Sea

production is probably at its maximum. In contrast, the Persian Gulf has produced a much

smaller proportion of its original endowment than has the U.S.: 11% versus 38%. As American

and world oil consumption continues to grow, the role of the Persian Gulf countries will continue

to increase in importance, in both quantity and value.

A closer look at the U.S. (Tables 10 and 11) illuminates the global importance of the

Persian Gulf. U.S. imports are growing rapidly: nearly 4% annually. Two primary factors create

this result. First, American consumption continues to grow, and is now about 7 billion barrels

13 The 5% high resource estimates are used in Table 9 because the author assumes (a) the Figure 4 probabilitydistributions will continue shifting rightward for some time, and (b) at some future date the real price of oil willpass $50, creating new incentive for increased recovery.

22

Figure 4. Change in Probability Distribution of Original Resource Endowment Estimates

14 See discussion of costs below, and Table 12.

23

Table 9. Persian Gulf, 2000 Assessment

CountryCum.Prod.

KnownReserves

ReserveExp.

Undis.Resources

OriginalEndow.

Rem.Resource

RR %World

Bahrain 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.7 4.5 3.6 0%

Iran 33.7 105.0 74.8 100.5 314.0 280.3 10%

Iraq 22.4 100.1 71.3 83.9 277.7 255.6 9%

Kuwait & NZ 31.0 93.6 66.6 7.2 198.4 167.4 6%

Oman 3.6 7.3 5.2 7.3 23.4 19.8 1%

Qatar 5.0 9.2 6.6 6.4 27.2 22.2 1%

Saudi Arabia 72.8 283.5 201.9 160.9 719.1 646.3 23%

UAE 15.7 72.9 51.9 15.5 156.0 140.3 5%

Total PersianGulf

185.1 672.7 479.0 383.4 1,720.2 1,535.1 54%

% World 26% 76% 70% 30% 40% 54%

World 708 883 682 1,290 3,563 2,855 100%

Row 539 859 612 1,107 3,117 2,578 90%

U.S. 169 24 70 183 446 277 10%

24

Table 9 Notes

1. Reserve expansion in Persian Gulf extrapolated from ratio of total Rest of WorldExpansion (612) to Known Reserves (859), or .712.

2. Suppose reserve expansion in Persian Gulf extrapolated as 94.3% of mean undiscovered:612/649 from FIG AR-5 in Assessment 2000. Association of Reserve Expansion withUndiscovered Resources is obvious. Reserve Expansion= 193.1, instead of 479.0 in table.

3. Some rows and columns do not add exactly because of rounding.

4. Iraq’s goals in the last 25 years: Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These four constitute66% of known reserves, 61% of reserve expansion, and 47% remaining resources;worldwide.

5. Current consumption per year: World, 24/25 Bbl.; U.S, 7 Bbl.; U.S. production: 2.1 Bbl. Imports, 3.4B crude, .8B refined, .7B NGL.

6. “Rem. Resources” means remaining resources, the sum of the second, third, and fourthcolumns: “Known Reserves”, “Reserve Expansion”, and “Undiscovered Resources”.

7. Sources: USGS, “World Petroleum Assessment 2000 – Description and Results,” 2000,website www.usgs.gov., USGS, “National Assessment,” op. cit., U. S. MineralsManagement Service, “Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Assessment,” 2000, websitewww.mms.gov.

25per year.15 Second, production continues to fall in Alaska and in the lower 48 states.

Imports (less exports) must continue to grow, even in the hypothetical event of stabilized

U.S. consumption. Oil production in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge would be costly in

both economic and environmental terms, but would only slow (not reverse) this trend of growing

imports. The current U.S. imports come from four continents. China is the only major oil

producer which does not export petroleum to the U.S.; China is also a net importer. Table 11

shows the 13 leading sources of U.S. petroleum imports. Eight of the 13 areas are now involved

in war or major internal conflict. The Appendix A lists all of the companies importing crude oil

into the U.S. in 2002, with their total imports and imports from the Persian Gulf. Given the

broad corporate network which handles world trade in crude and products, major production

losses in any one exporting country do not necessarily cause significant supply problems for

importing countries. (British Petroleum, owner of 80% of Prudhoe Bay production, is not

considered a major importer because it produces U.S. oil for use in the U.S.)

15 We use 26% of world consumption, a percentage which has not changed in 20 years. U.S. and worldconsumption have grown at the same rate.

26

Table 10. Basic U.S. Petroleum Data (billion barrels)

1995 2002AnnualChanges

Consumption 6.47 7.21 +2.2%

Exports .35 .36 +0.6%

Imports 3.22 4.21 +5.5%

Domestic Production Total 3.15 2.94 -1.4%

Alaska .54 .36 -7.8%

Lower 48 1.85 1.74 -1.2%

Natural Gas Liquids; Other .76 .84 +2.0%

Notes: Each entry includes both crude oil and petroleum products. Source is Monthly Energy Review,October 2003.

27

Table 11. U.S. Petroleum Imports, Major Sources, 2002

kbl/d Mbl/y % U. S. Total

*Saudi Arabia 1,553 567 14%*Iraq 442 161 4%*Other Persian Gulf 259 95 2%*Total Persian Gulf 2,254 823 20%

Canada 1,939 708 17%Mexico 1,532 559 13%*Venezuela 1,383 505 12%*Nigeria 596 218 5%UK 477 174 4%Norway 379 138 3%*Angola 326 119 3%*Algeria 269 98 2%*Colombia 256 93 2%Russia 202 74 2%Other 15 Countries 1,745 637 15%

Total 33 Countries 11,358 4,146 100%

Notes: imports are overwhelmingly crude oil rather than products or natural gas liquids. Asteriskdenotes author’s judgement of existence of severe current or potential internal conflicts. “Mbl” and“kbl” mean million barrels and thousand barrels. Percentages do not add to 100% because ofrounding error. Source: Monthly Energy Review, May 2003.

28V. The $60 Trillion Prize

Persian Gulf oil is the lowest cost petroleum in the world. It is less than $5 per barrel.16

These cost figures in Table 12 include exploration, capital investment, a return on capital, and a

risk allowance. Throughout the Persian Gulf every dollar above $5 is a dollar of additional profit.

If the price is $45 the additional profit above a normal profit is $40.17

Assume that $40 per barrel represents the profit from Persian Gulf crude oil over the

remainder of the century. This gives an indicative figure of the value of remaining resources in the

Persian Gulf: $61 trillion.18 It is a result of multiplying the remaining resource estimates in Table

9 by $40. Because production costs are so low in the Gulf, the Table 13 values are almost

wholly producer surplus.

This, then, is the global problem: $61 trillion in oil wealth, in an area with 120 million

people. In general terms, this is a serious world concern. The $61 trillion has been an attraction

to Western oil companies and governments. It was the goal of the Iraq invasions of Kuwait and

Iran. For the governments of the Gulf, recognition of the threats to their stability led to their

acquisition of considerable weaponry in the 1990s, and their alliance with the United States. At

the same time, the continuation of monarchies and dictatorships has been associated with the

growth of Al Qaeda, and the armed attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001 in the U.S.,

and elsewhere.

16 Based on data in the Financial Times, February 21, 2003 (page 3), the comparable cost for Iraq is $2.40 perbarrelbefore shipping.17 In economic terminology, this is considered to be either producer surplus, or economic rent.18 Discounting of course gives different values. In one optimal control analysis where rising demand curvesintersect a sequence of supply curves under a fixed constraint of remaining world oil of 3 trillion barrels, the

29

Table 12. Illustrative Production Cost

Possible Low Persian Gulf

Cost

Possible North Sea Cost

Investment in

Development, amortized

(including profit)

55¢ $10

Operations, lifting 25¢ $5

Shipping $2.00 included in operations

Total (rounded) $3.00 $15

Source: Chapman and Khanna (2000) and Chapman (1993).

discounted values are of course smaller than the Table 13 figures. See Chapman, December 2001, op. cit.

30

Table 13. Persian Gulf Petroleum Wealth(trillion dollars)

Method Iraq Saudi Eight PersianArabia Gulf Nations

A. $40 per barrel $10 T $26 T $61 T Undiscounted profit

B. Discounted supply $2 T $5 T $12 T demand equilibria

Notes: “T” means trillion dollars. For comparison, total world GDP was estimated to be $31 T in2001, by the World Bank. $40 barrel profit represents $45 average future price less $5 cost. Formethod B, see footnote 15.

31The problems of production and price stability have been solved in a reasonable economic

framework. However, political instability, the spread of nuclear and conventional weapons, and

the growing ferocity of the military conflicts and terrorist activities in, or originating in the region

show us that a breakdown of civil authority will lead to a collapse of the economic framework of

Persian Gulf oil exports.

There are three broadly different approaches to the problem.

VI. Roads to the Future

The three broad roads of choice have already seen heavy use. I describe them as the

“hands off” (or autonomy) approach, the American security framework, and an international

framework.

A. Autonomy: “Hands Off”

Autonomy suggests self-government and sovereignty for each individual country. It

implies that other nations do not seek to dominate the region; or, if they seek to do so, they are

unsuccessful. The years 1973-1990 roughly approximate this picture.

In petroleum management, the Gulf nations and OPEC sought to organize world oil prices

and production from 1973 (the “Oil Embargo”) to 1986 (Table 2). For most of this period the

West reacted to OPEC initiatives by developing alternative but high-cost oil supplies in Alaska

and the North Sea. Mexico and Russia became major exporters. These two developments

(OECD oil in the North Sea and Alaska, the emergence of major exports from Mexico and Russia)

32unraveled OPEC’s hopes to control prices. In 1986 then-Vice President George H. Bush

organized the OECD/OPEC price framework (Figure 3, Table 3) which continues to the present.

Persian Gulf governments more or less pursued their own destiny as they saw it during

this period. Iran replaced its monarchy, which had itself been reintroduced with the active

support of the US-CIA. Iraq (with minor support from the US-CIA) changed its government

from a military dictatorship supported by communists, to a Baath party dictatorship (Table 1).

Iraq invaded Iran. The U.S. sold arms to Iran in the Iran-Contra program, and provided limited

support to Iraq in its war with Iran. The other Gulf states continued as oil exporters under

independent monarchies dominated by leading families, without major civil disturbances.

The severe defect in this approach was made evident by Iraq. As we saw above (Table

9), Iraq sought control of Persian Gulf oil. It saw a $60 trillion prize, and fought to seize it

through war. The Iraq-Iran war dead are thought to be one million; Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and

the first Gulf War to remove Iraq from Kuwait added perhaps another 100,000 dead. All

together, the first two Iraqi wars killed a million combatants and civilians, more or less. National

borders and world oil markets remained essentially unchanged.

Any global policy which leaves Persian Gulf nations undefended invites future aggression

from within or without the region, with the goal of that aggression to seize and hold oil wealth.

Of course aggression by Iraq is not today a threat to global stability. But the prize remains, and

the nuclear and conventional weaponry in the region continue to expand.

Those future aggressions are not visible today. Would a regional power (Turkey, Israel,

Pakistan, India?) seek to appropriate a share of petroleum wealth? Could Russia revive its old

33goals of power and influence in Iran and Iraq? Is it possible that at some future date one or more

Western nations could make an effort to secure a share of the Gulf’s oil? Another of the Gulf

states?

If the Persian Gulf were to experience a return to the international laissez faire conditions

of 1973-1990, the only certainty is that new efforts will be made to lay hold of the oil. These

new efforts would involve the increasingly destructive power of conventional weaponry, and a

possibility of use of the growing arsenal of nuclear weapons.

This, then, is the powerful force which leads to the need for a Persian Gulf security

framework. Consideration of equity and practicality leads to several desirable characteristics of a

security system:

1. Stable oil production and the continuation of a price range mutually acceptable to

OECD consumers and Gulf exporters.

2. A level of revenues sufficient for Persian Gulf governments.

3. Sufficient military power to deter wars of expropriation of Gulf oil.

4. Political or military mechanisms to reduce the growing nuclear threat in the region.

5. Institutional protection against control of oil by the providers of military security.

6. Governments in the Gulf which are supported by their citizens.

B. An American Security Framework

Can the United States provide the necessary security? The United States has significant

34assets which support an affirmative position on the issue. Most importantly, the U.S. has

demonstrated military strength which is clearly adequate to deter or defeat any Persian Gulf

nation or regional power which might consider the pursuit of Gulf oil.

On two other conditions, an American framework would be satisfactory for the

foreseeable future. The target price range with stable world supply is continuing as the

occupation of Iraq evolves. In addition, revenues to Persian Gulf governments continue at levels

acceptable to them.

The implications of the other three conditions are less supportive of a unilateral American

security structure. India and Pakistan may feel that with America’s attention focused on the

Persian Gulf, they each might consider expanding their nuclear arsenals without provoking a

strong negative reaction from the U.S. For Iran, the presence of American armed forces on 10 of

its borders is of strong concern. The acquisition of nuclear weapons will appeal to some in Iran’s

leadership as a means to deter possible U.S. invasion.

For Russia, China, and perhaps France, the maintenance or expansion of nuclear weapons

capability will seem a potential counterweight to growing American power. Overall, an American

security framework in the Persian Gulf is likely to expand rather than reduce nuclear weapons

capabilities, regionally and globally.

The implications of the fifth condition – protection against control of Persian Gulf oil by

the providers of military security – are perhaps impossible to evaluate today. The next few

months of the American occupation will give some insight into future management of Iraqi oil by

the U.S.

35The last condition of popular support for Persian Gulf governments is particularly

challenging. If the American goal is the protection of stable global oil markets at reasonable

prices, then there is logical motivation to endeavor to encourage the democratization of

governments in the Gulf. Non-economic goals may constitute a second motivation which leads

the U.S. on a quest for democratization throughout the region.

A still different outcome might be that democracy and elections in some Gulf countries

could bring to power governments fundamentally opposed to the U.S. As outlined above, Al

Qaeda’s political support is based upon its fervent opposition to Gulf monarchies, American

influence, and secularism. An American security system linked to a continuation of the

monarchies would seem to accelerate popular support for Al Qaeda-type policies and actions.

C. An International Security Framework

An international approach would have some potential advantages. Given the success to

date with the current price range system (see Section II above), an international approach ought

to be able to manage stable oil production and prices, and sufficient revenues for Gulf

governments. With participation from the U.S. and others, it would be able to deter wars of

appropriation of Gulf oil. As an international group, it would be well placed to forestall control

of the region’s oil by security providers in the international organization. If an international

framework is satisfactory on these points, then the motivation for nuclear weapons in the region

is reduced.

The last requirement seems most problematic: how would an international organization

36lead to increased democratization and governments which have a greater degree of popular

support by their citizens? Would more democratic governments and elections need to be

imposed upon the region? Would this, in turn, lead to greatly reduced incentives for Al Qaeda-

type organizations? Or would the opposite occur with greater public participation, would there

be a growth in hostility towards the U.S. and increased terrorism?

The elephant in this concept, certainly, is the nonexistence of any organization of the

type hypothesized. Any important and successful international structure must have the U.S.

playing a leadership role, and that generality applies here. American participation must be

significant both militarily and organizationally. The military dimension is perceivable as

something roughly patterned after NATO. As with NATO, a Persian Gulf Organization would

include major military powers, and also nations that see themselves as in need of military

protection. As with NATO, the organization would incorporate former enemies. Just as NATO

now includes Poland and Germany, Greece and Turkey, a Gulf organization would incorporate

Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states.

There are also partial parallels here with the World Trade Organization, the European

Union, OPEC, the 1991 Persian Gulf Coalition, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the UN

Security Council as well as with NATO.

Use “PGO” to suggest a Persian Gulf Organization or Authority. Potential participants

would be the 8 Persian Gulf States, the U.S., the U.K., China, France, Japan, Germany, Russia,

and perhaps members from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. It might be financed by

a tax on oil exported from the Gulf. Such revenues (both tax revenue and revenue from export oil

37sales) could be allocated to Gulf states, and also utilized to support the military forces employed

to protect and stabilize the Persian Gulf.

Consider a current price of $30 per barrel at a tanker loading facility in the Gulf. This is

at the high end of the existing price range framework. The revenues might be distributed as

suggested in Table 14, with a total illustrative figure of $180 billion as annual revenue associated

with the current Gulf export level of 6 billion barrels. The $30 figure could be seen as the current

(June 2003) $25 price for Saudi oil, plus an additional $5 tax.

The first item in part B of the Table provides for the costs of production, development,

risk, and profit. The $5 figure is higher than the $3 estimate in Table 12. Iran may be at or above

a $5 cost; Iraq and Saudi Arabia may be lower. General inflation will work to increase this

amount, while continuing technological innovation will work to lower production cost.

Ultimately, in some future decade, depletion will cause an increase in cost. But now and for the

next few years $5 is a reasonable approximation of cost (including a return to capital) for the

region.

Second: $90 billion as revenue to Persian Gulf states. This may be equal to or slightly

less than existing regional expenditures on civilian government functions. One consequence of an

effective PGO-type entity would be major reductions on military costs incurred by Gulf states,

establishing a much higher proportion of petroleum revenues available for nonmilitary and

security purposes.

Third: $60 billion available each year as financial support to the providers of Persian

Gulf security. This ought to approximate U.S. annual military expenditures for Persian Gulf

38

Table 14. Hypothetical Illustration of Allocation of Persian Gulf

Revenue by a Persian Gulf Organization or Authority.

A. Assume: 6 Billion Barrels Exported @ $30 per Barrel. Revenue Equals

$180 Billion Annually.

B. Illustration of Revenue Allocation

#1. $30 B to oil production, development, profit ($5 per barrel).

#2. $90 B as revenue to Persian Gulf States ($15 per barrel).

#3. $60 B as support for military expense ($10 per barrel).

39security during the non-war years 1992 to September 2001.19

The current unilateral U.S. security system inherently manifests what economists call the

“Free Rider Problem”20. The major consumers of Persian Gulf oil are Europe, Japan, South

Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines (Table B2 in Appendix B). As long as the U.S. (and to a

lesser extent the U.K.) manage security, there is no incentive for these countries that consume

Persian Gulf oil to participate financially in security measures.

Similarly, the political and human cost is borne by the U.S. and Persian Gulf states, and

not those regions that actually depend upon and use Persian Gulf oil.

The unilateral approach suffers from a serious political defect. The U.S. will experience

considerable difficulty in attaining legitimacy as the sole governing authority in Iraq and possibly

in other Gulf states. In contrast, a multilateral system would have lesser problems with

legitimacy, internationally and in the Gulf region itself.

The conditions outlined on page 33 seem to be best met by a multilateral approach.

However, any multilateral or international security structure in the Persian Gulf must have the

U.S. as a leader and supporter, militarily and politically. The international political difficulties

surrounding the issues of Iraqi weapons, inspection, disarmament, and occupation all indicate the

problems to be encountered in establishing an international system. There is no certainty that an

international structure is feasible with U.S. leadership; it cannot be considered without U.S.

leadership.

19 In 1992, Darwin Hall estimated the incremental cost of Persian Gulf military expenditures for the U.S. to be $10per barrel (adjusted to 1995 prices); D. Hall, November 1992 Energy Policy, 20(11) 1089-1096. In the mid ‘90s,Michael O’Hanlon estimated the military cost to the U.S. for Persian Gulf security to be $50 billion annually (NewYork Times December 30,1995, and September 18, 1996). Also see Chapman and Khanna 2000, page 7.

40

Appendix A. Company Network Importing Oil into the U.S., Total and Persian Gulf

January - December 2002(Thousands of Barrels)

Totals: 3,302,012 802,891 24%

Company Total Persian Gulf %Persian GulfChevron Corp 264,555 133,243 50%Motiva Enterprises LLC 246,619 203,527 83%Phillips 66 Co 233,958 24,842 11%Exxon Co USA 219,197 70,758 32%Mobil Oil Corp 201,803 9,204 5%Sunoco Inc 198,113 2,428 1%Valero Mktg & Supply Co 195,576 120,088 61%Marathon Ashland Petro LLC 170,267 77,313 45%Amoco Oil Co 156,733 32,861 21%Flint Hills Resources LP 138,454 7,898 6%Citgo Petro Corp 130,634 13,421 10%Shell Oil Co 110,102Conoco Inc 95,155 617 1%Lyondell Citgo Refg LP 89,117 9,525 11%Phillips Petro Co 85,454 14,564 17%Port Arthur Coker Co 61,243 2,969 5%Company Total Persian Gulf %Persian GulfBP Oil Supply Co 52,970 2,260 4%Atofina Petrochemicals Inc 46,018 19,009 41%The Premcor Refg Group Inc 44,039 6,313 14%Orion Rfng Corp 44,007 1,447 3%El Paso Merchant Energy-Petro 42,490Arco Prod Co 38,080 6,095 16%Murphy Oil USA Inc 36,810 7,012 19%Chalmette Refg LLC 32,387Tesoro Petro Corp 30,311Citgo Asph Refg Co 23,978PDV Midwest Refg LLC 23,794 517 2%Equiva Tradg Co 21,383United Refg Co 21,286

20 A point suggested by Richard Fullerton.

41Tesoro Hawaii Corp 19,233Williams Refg & Mktg LLC 18,628Cenex Harvest States Coop 16,827Shell Chem LP 16,766Diamond Shamrock Refg & Mktg 15,522 2,415 16%Lion Oil Co 12,508 12,508 100%Shell US Tradg Co 12,161Crown Central Petro Corp 11,774Ultramar Inc 11,249 632 6%Company Total Persian Gulf %Persian GulfHunt Crude Oil Supply Co 10,627 5,370 51%Sinclair Oil Corp 10,460TPI Petro Inc 9,805 7,515 77%Giant Yorktown Inc 9,007Fina Oil & Chem Co 8,882 4,039 45%Frontier Oil & Refg 8,438Ergon Refg Inc 6,638Strategic Petro Reserve 5,767Koch Supply & Trading Co 5,656 1,039 18%Trigeant Ltd 5,421Vitol S A Inc 4,667Shell Oil Prodts US 4,499Bayoil USA Inc 3,462 3,462 100%Edgington Oil Co 3,235Farmland Indus Inc Cra 2,553Montana Refg Co 2,183Nexen Mktg 1,903Flying Petro Inc 1,653Statoil Mktg & Trdg (US) Inc 1,096Morgan Stanley Capital Grp Inc 1,074Husky Trdg Co 1,004NCRA 971Atlantic Trdg & Mktg Inc 948Company Total Persian Gulf %Persian GulfEquilon Enterprises LLC 882Cannat Energy Inc 664Hess Energy Trading Co LLC 548Marquest Ltd Ptnrshp 406Equistar Chemicals LP 252Texaco Refg & Mktg Inc 110

42*Notes: Several factors influence the source of a company's crude oil imports. For example, acompany like Motiva, which is partly owned by Saudi Refining Inc., would be expected toimport a large percentage from the Persian Gulf, while Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which isowned by the Venezuelan state oil company, would not be expected to import a large percentagefrom the Persian Gulf, since most of their imports likely come from Venezuela. In addition, otherfactors that influence a specific company's sources of crude oil imports would include thecharacteristics of various crude oils as well as a company's economic needs. While, in general,crude oil is fungible, i.e., one crude oil can be substituted for another, many refineries areoptimized by refining crude oil with specific qualities (e.g., the API gravity, the amount of sulfurin the crude oil, etc.). Also, depending on the global crude oil market condition at the time, theprice difference between heavy and light crude oils varies, thus changing the economic dynamicsfor different refineries. Therefore, many factors determine the source of a company's crude oilimports. The data are based upon operating companies; consequently Chevron and Texaco areseparate entries; and so are Exxon and Mobil; and BP, Amoco, and Arco.

Source: Reproduced from Energy Information Association, Crude Oil Imports From the PersianGulf 2002; www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary2002.html>.Accessed May 3, 2003.

43

Appendix B. Additional Data on International Trade in Petroleum

Table B1. U.S. International Oil Trade(billion barrels, 1999)

Crude Oil Exports To: Crude Oil Imports From:.01 to Japan .77 from Middle East

.04 to Philippines .55 from Canada

.01 to Australia 1.48 from Latin America

.07 to Europe .02 from China

.16 to Latin America .63 from Africa

.07 to Canada * from Russia

.36 Total .09 from Pacific

.23 from Europe

3.80 Total

U.S. Crude Production 2.4Crude Oil Imports 3.8Refined Product Imports .8Products from Natural Gas .7Total U.S. Supply 7.4

U.S. Consumption 7.0U.S. Exports .4Total U.S. Disposition 7.4*Note: “*” means less than .005.

44

Table B2. Middle East Exports

To --- Area AmountU.S .77

Europe 1.69

Japan 1.54

Philippines/Taiwan/Asia 2.27

Australia .06

Latin America .21

Africa .24

Other (Canada, other) .05

Total 6.83

*Note: Persian Gulf production is 85.5% of Middle East production. Data for 2001, from MERJanuary 2003.

45

Table B3. Japanese Oil Consumption and Imports(billion barrels and percents)

A. Imports: Amounts, and Percent of Consumption

Middle East 1.54 75%

Indonesia/Pacific .31 15%

China .06 3%

Latin America .02 1%

Africa .01 *

U.S. .01 *

Europe * *

Russia * *

B. Japan Production, Percent of Consumption

.005 *

C. Japanese Consumption 2.04 100%

*Notes: “*” means less than .005 Bbl/y, or less than one-half of 1%. Data for 1999. Sources areIPE 2000 and MER January 2003. Consumption exceeds production plus imports by .07; probablydue to rounding, and different sources.

46

Table B4. Western Europe: Trade in Oil(billion barrels)

EXPORTS TO: IMPORTS FROM:

U.S. .23 Middle East 1.69

Canada .13 Africa 1.01

Russia .08 Russia .69

Africa .06 Latin America .17

Japan * U.S. .07

Philippines/Asia .02 Canada *

Latin America .02 Total 3.63

Total .53

CONSUMPTION: 5.54 PRODUCTION: 2.31

Total Consumptionand Exports:

6.07 Total Production andImports:

5.94

47

Table B5. Global Oil Trade, 1999(billion barrels)

Produced and Consumed in Country of Origin: 10 42%

Traded in World Markets: 14 58%

Total Production/ Consumption: 24 100%

Sources: IPE 2000, MER January 2003

48

Table B6. World Leading Oil Producers

Country Rank Bbl/ySaudi Arabia 1 2.8

Russia 2 2.7

U.S. 3 2.1

China 4 1.2

Mexico 5 1.2

Norway 6 1.1

Venezuela 7 .9

UK 8 .8

UAE 9 .7

Nigeria 10 .7

Kuwait 11 .7

Indonesia 12 .4

Total 15.3

*Note: Neutral zone production split 50-50 between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These are countrieswith at least one million bl/d production in 2002. Total World Production was 24.4 Bbl.

49

Table B7. Population, GDP, Oil Production and Revenue

Country

GDP percapita2001

Population(millions)

2001

GDP($billions)

2001

OilProduction

Bbl2001

Revenue @$25/bl

Bahrain $9,370 0.7 6.2 0.1 $3B

Iran $1,750 64.7 112.9 1.4 $35B

Iraq $1,861 23.8 44.3 0.9 $23B

Kuwait $18,030 2.0 35.8 0.7 $18B

Oman $6,091 2.5 15.2 0.3 $8B

Qatar $18,000 0.6 10.8 0.3 $8B

Saudi Arabia $7,230 21.4 149.9 2.9 $73B

UAE $18,000 3.0 54.1 0.8 $20B

118.7 429.9 7.4 $188B

*Notes: The average per capita income: $3,600. The Oil Revenue as a % of GDP: 43.7%. ForIraq and Oman, GDP is estimated (very roughly) as the product (a) population, and (b) themidpoint of the per capita GNI range reported for each country by the World Bank. For Qatar andUAE, per capita is taken to be equivalent to that of Kuwait, $18,030 per capita.